Probably
Probably
The Kansas Relays numbers are a bit mis-leading...most of those fans are the high school kids competing at the same meet. There was definitely no sale of 30,000 individual tickets.
The one athlete who I always felt got most screwed in '80 was Mary Decker. That would have been her year.
The biggest problem has been the drop in scholarships, and the resulting end of genuine intercollegiate competition. I don't think '80 was the end--if anything, '84 was one of our best years (despite the lack of Eastern Bloc athletes, it was great on TV for American T&F).
Who was better in 1980 Julie Brown or Mary Decker ?
Don Paige was running 800 as well as anyone that year.
Yes, Julie Brown. She was just unstoppable. Somebody could probably correct me, but Julie Brown would have been an Olympic champion. I think she was better than Mary Decker (just my opinion).
I think Julie Brown was an 800 meter at that time. I don't know if she was much better than 2:10 and 4:05-10.
I think in 1984 she was a solid contender for a medal after running a fast marathon prior to the trials (around 2:25 I believe).
She beat be in a 10k road race in 1982, running around 34:00.
Coached by Chuck DeBuss at one point who later got banned from coaching.
I would assume the guys who were screwed the most were the American 100 meter and 200 meter sprinters.
A lot of things contributed to the demise of T&F.
1. The explosion of pro basketball & football. There is just not much room for coverage of anything else. Anyone that is a fan of a "minor" sport has to seek out coverage. Thank goodness for the net.
2. The domination of East African distance runners. I think just leaves the impression that distance running is something "other courtries do." Without success the US loses interest.
3. No more USSR bad guy.
4. Drugs- nuff said.
5. And here is my crazy theory. Distances in metric. The US public do not appreciate or understand a 5000m or 10K, or worse yet the 1500. I realize that the rest of the world competes at the metric and we have to, but running some (not but SOME) US races at 1 mile, 2 mile, 3 mile etc... may help in marketing. Too me it's like putting on a track meet and having the anouncer speak in French. Sure people CAN figure it out, but if you want just your typical slob to understand and develop an appreciation, you need to try and speak their language (at least on occation.)
why was he banned ? drugs ?
The 84 Games were the rise of drugs in sport at the Olympic level. Actually blood doping was not on the banned list at that time and many openly blood doped becasue they said it was legal (or, not illegal). I tend to think the fall of sport is due to spectator demands. The people who used to watch track meets were track nuts, but they don't pay the bill of the major networks -- the masses who spectate pay, and these spectators are not watching track because they like T&F. They watch whatever excites them -- a pro football game one day, a sitcom on TV the next day and whatever they watch they want something special to happen and to them a good race is not enough -- they want a world record; they want something special and distance athletes have a hard time giving that to them so why watch. Drugs may help some, but even that can't keep producing better and better performances. So they get excited about the hardships someone put up with in order to reach the top. Performance takes second seat to the spectacular -- yelling about a very average play on the field; chest thumping at the end of a race; you name it, everything is more exciting to the current breed of spectators than is a good race -- they are not track nuts and don't pretend to be
I agree with Squires that part of the problem was TAC mismanagement. Olan Cassell was a megalomaniac who lacked marketing savvy and thought he owned the athletes. Track is not the most spectator-friendly sport, but there were some classic rivalries in the 70s that could have been used to promote the sport. Cassell also tried to tell guys like Shorter and Prefontaine where they had to run if they were to tour internationally at all.
I also think the Moscow boycott sucked the wind out of US distance running. We had a very strong team in 1980, and those runners would have inspired the next generation of top Americans. I can recall when I was 16 of being glued to the TV watching Pre and Shorter and Wottle perform in the 1972 Olympics, as well as the international stars like Viren and Keino and Vasala. A younger generation of runners missed out on that kind of inspiration in 1980. I don't think the Olympics were even televised at all.
And sure enough, high school two-mile depth began to decline in the 1980s. The number of boys running under nine minutes peaked around 1980 and then began a long decline.
I think strangelove is right. If you look at the early 1980's when the impact should have been greatest, those were actually some of our best years. US senior men won silver at World Cross in '83 and '84, and probably did as well or nearly so other years as well. I think the US women won gold at least in '84 as well.
In terms of individuals, I would counter whoever said Bill McChesney. Bill was just starting his upswing in '80 - his best shot at a medal would have been '84 (he would have been around 26 then), but he had an injury that had nothing to do with the boycott. I think Bill's best year was actually in like '82, but then his achilles went and he was pretty much done because of related injuries, not the boycott. Had he not gotten hurt and continued his trajectory, there would be a lot less talk about Prefontaine today and much more about Eugene's favorite and native son.
A couple of individuals whose best years would have been right around then and who were a bit past prime in '84 would have been Craig Virgin and Garry Bjorklund. BJ was clearly in the shape of his life in the winter of 1980 - didn't he not even run the marathon Trials? I think he opted for Grandmas instead and ran like 2:09? Perhaps memory is not serving here, but I KNOW he was really chafed by the boycott. It clearly affected him for the rest of his career.
Virgin was winning world cross championships and in contention in every international race he ran. Certainly should have been a contender for some medal in Moscow at the ten. By '84 his best running was behind him.
Who else? Herb Lindsay might have had his best shot then, as well as Jon Sinclair. Henry Marsh? Alberto was at his best then, he was cooked by LA and clearly never the same.
I meant 2:00 for 800 for Julie Brown.
I think in the marathon at Moscow the American team might have put 3 in the top ten with Sandoval a serious contender and Rodgers still a threat.
Good stuff, was McChesney known outside of Oregon back then ?
Don't you know it. All the way back to Owatonna, Minnesota, where his charming and lovely wife grew up. All you horn-dogs on the Decker thread, Mrs. McChesney was/is 10 times hotter. ;)
Seriously, a 13:14 back then got you known pretty much world-wide in running circles. I especially remember one great 5k where Bill pushed the pace the whole way, only to be outkicked by John Treacy and Steve Ovett. Ovett thought he had it won, but here comes Treacy in the last 3 strides diving under Ovett's upraised arms. Billy a few courageous meters back. Bislett? I think.
5. And here is my crazy theory. Distances in metric. The US public do not appreciate or understand a 5000m or 10K, or worse yet the 1500. I realize that the rest of the world competes at the metric and we have to, but running some (not but SOME) US races at 1 mile, 2 mile, 3 mile etc... may help in marketing. Too me it's like putting on a track meet and having the anouncer speak in French. Sure people CAN figure it out, but if you want just your typical slob to understand and develop an appreciation, you need to try and speak their language (at least on occation.)[/quote]
I actually don't think that's crazy. I am a track fan who competed at metric distances and still enjoy watching 1 mile better than 1500, 2 mile than 3000, etc. To the average Joe it must be even more pronounced. No one wants to know your best 1500 time.
I think the Pre meet, for one, has it right. It's fun to watch those distances in miles, more meets should do it. Certainly high schools should dispense with the silliness of 1600 and 3200.
Tell me if you think this is crazy. I think some meets would be more popular if they had only men competing. There is a reason why they don't play WNBA games right after an NBA game. No disrespect intended to the efforts of women. I think races at any level (as evidenced by Penn, Drake, etc.) can be fun to watch, but the most exciting are the highest level of performance. And honeslty, it's got to be a pretty high level women's 10k. before it doesn't almost instantly get strung out over 400 m.
To What do you think?
What do you think ? wrote:
Just curious, Do you oldtimes and track fans think the downfall of our sport began with the boycott ?
What runners career was hurt the most ?
Ha! it did a good job on me.It drove my ass into alcoholism because it did stold my Olympic Dream,politicians owe me two gold medals.5,000m and 10,000m.Believe it or not.
Henry, do you feel you would have won the 5,000 and the 10,000 ?
Also as a recovering alcholic myself I feel no event drove me to drink, I would have drank too much be it good times or bad times. Do you agree ? thanks and best of luck in recovery.
liffiker wrote:
The 84 Games were the rise of drugs in sport at the Olympic level. Actually blood doping was not on the banned list at that time and many openly blood doped becasue they said it was legal (or, not illegal).
1984?? You're off by about 20 years. There were some drugs in 1960, more in 1964, and many more in '68. From there on out, the pharmacy was open 24 hours a day on every street corner. The first possibility of blood doping was about 1968, but it was definitely being done by 1971. In '84, the drugs were different--I've seen LA referred to as the HGH Olympics--but drug use absolutely did not begin in '84.